The Sun. — London, England, 1838-04-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 1838. • !moments and benefactors of the world. I call on each party in this House to unite in rendering this tribute to the minds by which even party associati o n s are di gn ifi ed; on those who antlerpate successive chan ges i n soc i ety to acknowledge their it to those wh o ex p an d t h e v i sta of the future, and people It with goodly visions; on those who fondly linger on the past, and repose on time-hallowed institutions, to consider how Much that is ennobling in their creed has been drawn from minds which have clothed the usages and forms, by reverse, With the symbols of venerableness and beauty ; on all, if they cannot find some common ground on which they may unite !Ist dr awing assurance o f p rogress i ve good for the future from the glories of the past, to recognise their obligation to those the products of whose intellect shall grace, and soften, and ai gnif Ythe strugwl e . Wi cull be now mad a setondl:limteh.ese feelings' I move that this observed that i n hi s o pi n i on th e s i m pl e ques tiol,:initrf'oritilt4t'ge House to c ons id er was , w h et h er a copyr i g h t o f d u , I-eight years' duration was a sufficient privilege to in 'e an author to devote his talents to the instruction or amuse ment of the public. No man could he more willing than he rag that an author of ability should derive all the ad vantage tr° r n the exercise of that a bilit y w hi c h h e oug h t to d er i ve, 11 he (Mr. Hum e ) was . E very man of talent ought to de that advantage ; the inventor of a mechanical machine, Svvell as the author of a poem or a hist or y. All d eserve d t o Sewell equally p rotecte d . If, therefore, the present proposition vfer e to be agreed to, the House would be called upon to con sider what additional privileges ought to be conferred on those W ho talent s were exercised in a different direction. Men 4 0 , devoted their talents to the improvement of the steam g, 111 ; or to other similar objects, ought to be put on the same l eo _ ang as those whose interests it was the object of the Bill 4 nder the consideration of the House to protect. Now, it Would certainly be highly injurious to the public if that I X e , done. The q uest i on , t h ere f ore , arose w ith d o uble f o rce s.. 2 . tner the p r i v il ege at present enjoyed by authors was not u meient to induce them to employ their talents. He did not think that the Hon. and Learned Member had suc ceeded in establi s hi ng t h e pos i t i on t h at i t was no t su ffi c ie n t to the that ground, principally, he (Mr, Hume) was opposed he had that If the principles contained in the petition which night presented against the Bill were correct, it be for the House to consider 'whether the present limi t tio n ,a of ps . - --Orignt t o t w enty-eight years was insufficient ; and etner it would be wise or expedient to extend the duration 2 t o the copy r i ght to fifty years, or more. He differed entirely ;41 the honourable and learned gentleman on that point, 1 3 was not p repare d to exten d t h e pr i v il ege o f copyr i g h t be the ex i st i ng period of twenty-eight years ; and "sPecially beca use , h e repeate d , t h at if t h at extension o f pro znieection were granted to authors, it must be granted to other nof talent, the authors of ingenious inventions. Was the their prep are d to a d m i t to the latter class o f i n di v id ua l s that -en• existing protection was not sufficient ? Yet that they in ov u e ,st admit, if they admitted that the existing protection en by literary men was not sufficient. It !would be most ncl partial. legislati on to exten d the protection to the one class, of to refus e to extend it t o th e other. Many persons were ° Pinion that the inventions of the one class were quite as dueir eff u .: c to the c om f or t an d happiness of the world as laena.rt;led°" of literary genius, to which the honourable and gentleman had exclusively adverted. Nor was_ that . rn He objected to the limitation of the intellectual enjo)- it en t t °f t.h,e public at large, which the extension of the pre tee?- in of copyright was calculated to produce. .He th, d i his hand a statement by which it appeared that during s 'ast Year of the existence of the copyright of Sir Walter eti c . ott' s ,„ " Lay of th• last Minstrel" that work was sold at two ; but that in the year after the expiration of the copy year' -t it 'vas published at five shillings; and in the subsequent t<< at eighteenpence I The same was the case with respect `darmion " It was originally published at a guinea and a ;_'• After ;hand expiration of the copyright it was published at diminution cishillings more recently at tenpence ! Was not that _ nution of price a great advantage to the public—an ad -BTnantap which ought not to be relinquished, unless on very f l u o r :L ._ pounds? He therefore said once more that all the th _ ...cad to consider was whether, up to the . present time, 311:-, privilege enjoyed by authors had beon a fair, a proper, a Rulcient privilege. It was just also to ask who and where ere the parties complaining of the existing state of the law, and tequiring an alteration ? He had made diligent inquiry, and he did cot understand that there was a single petition to the House.in favour of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman's Bill. W hY, then, alter what had gone on so long without complaint, aZd against which no comlaint was at present preferred ? T i hY, without being desired to do so, agree to a measure calculated to produce a great evil—that of increasing the price of books? The question lay within a very narrow corn- PLs , Ls , ; and h e h a d state d t h e v i ew he took o f i t. Whil e h e I lea desirous that every author, and every other man of genius and talents, should enjoy the benefit to which he - was entitled, he was not prepared to make the provision com prehended in the Bill of the Honourable and Learned Mem ber for Reading a general one ; and if not a general one ; great injustice would be inflicted on those who employed their talents in a way calculated to promote the great branches of our ma viufactures and industry. For these reasons he should move, as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, Mr. WA R.BURTON seconded the amendment. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL expressed his anxiety t o say a very few words, for the purp o s e o f explaining the sons which compelled him to support the amendment o f the „"°n• Member for Kilkenny, and to oppose the moti on o f h is ' lOll . and Learned Friend. He took this course with great l'eluctance, because he could not but feel that it was a subject with which his Hon. and Learned Friend had taken great F l °s; and th a t i t was a su bj ect w hi c h hi s H on. an d L earne d r l end was peculia r ly we ll a d a p te d to d ea l w i t h. H e wou ld , b° end very s h ort l y state to t h e H ouse hi s reasons f or op- Posing the m easure. I n the f i rst place he disputed the prin ezPie which his Hon. and Learned Friend had so eloquently endeavoured to enforce. He could not but think that his Hon. and Learned Friend was asking the Legislature, by acting on a sort of sentimental feeling, to take a course which, in his (the Solic itor -General's) opinion, they would fail in their Y if they were really to take. There was only one tapiestion to be asked. Was the present term of copyright _lliTcient effectually to secure to an author himself the benefit :to w itch he ought to derive from the exercise of his talents? If e then why extend it? It might be a pleasing thing . to at n nt emPlate the extension of the benefit to the posterity . of an author. But it was impossible so to extend it with- lie t• ie ing a great and manifest injustice to the public. bareW quite ready to admit that authors of genius shou d all that they Were entitled to ask. But if they already tot enou Public gh to secure the devotion of their powers to the vreovi:lwlyhY Iriat er ! be so adopt a measure by which the public must injured? All unnecessary taxation was to be de. • ta ,,' 'I; and what tax could possibly be more injurious than to di fk a ,e o n that knowledge which they were all so desirous vas, if hear.) He repeated that the only question h ,10fiellaithe present term of copyright was sufficient for all - h ad a e Pnr P°ses? If his Honourable and Learned Friend had argued r ' ll the subject in the Court of King's Bench as . he tha t 1, 1 ,., it in that House, it would have been said of him and committed a logical felo de se. His Honourable Worth, ; ...11(1 Friend had shown that the illustrious Words carelessee obscurity in which he voluntarily remained, was bir o °f present benefit, satisfied that posterity would do Protecc t.ce * Why, that showed, not only that the existing tectio I°ll was sufficient, but that it did not require any pro thehatever to induce great writers to instruct and amuse ti... 1 , ) ,11b1ic with their lucubrations. Such being the case, was i his Ho Uouse prepared to tax the public in the manner in which it? enourable and Learned Friend's Bill would certainly tax Priem e thought not, even on his Honourable and Learned at atie . showing. But, independently of that circum i - Reuss"' he maintained that, on the general principle, t had ho right to tax the public to a greater extent thanse7l• .aufficient to induce an author to devote his labours to their 1 1 , ( 1r. He sh ou l d therefore vote for the amendment which S ir e W Roved by th e H on. M ember for K i lkenny. andL °IERT INGLIS supported the Bill. The Hon. that licarned Gentleman ought to have shown, if he could, common terary property was not just as much protected by the question la w as any other description of property. The — O , indeed, in his ( Sir R. Inglis's) opinion was, if literary perty had not been injured by the Act which was called an t t f or its protection ; and whether we ought not to revert O that which was originally the case, and give to an author that property in his literary productions which was enjoyed by very other erson • leas t the honou p rabl e n p o ssession that he enjoyed. At lan hown w h y and learned y twent y - ge ntleman ought to have Yond which t h e eight years was the limit of protection be- ?t books Legislatur e ought not to go. As to the price a, it should be r eco ll ected that t h e purchase of books a voluntary act ; and that no author would ever ch :s ar o g s e e a , u re l d r i r price for his books thaa he found the public . e e ;„ Y i _ t . e pay. Could it be conceived that any author would forth hi works in his own possession rather than let them g to the public at a reasonable rate ? Would any of the great writers of the last century, or would any of their dae renint!ants, if the property in the works of their progenitors h of the de remained in them, have so acted? What was the object In ( proposed by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman heswarlLlnglis's) opinion that Bill did not go far enough, for Pos sesse y;rous that the original right which literary property and th L° common with all property sh . ould . be restored, Il e s i t an author should bold his copyright in perpetuity. h e c"i'ad understand wh no copyright should be created, but e ight ou e —i a °t understand why it should be limited to twenty thisd 13171 44, or to any other definite period. He supported la w, n", therefore, as a great improvement in the existing ot as effecting all the good which he thought desirable. tlan Y b We re great writers to be laced in the more than Egyp- Mee t °ll dage of receivin only just as much as would induce ,hichto continue their l g abours j ? Was that the manner m in rnoe ti eacil men as the author of " Comus" and of other i arksPerinitt ought to be treated? Why should they not be d ao , to bequeath their literary property to their desce th e l i s it ? The Honourable Member for Kilkenny had talked of venters of mechanical improvements. He ( Sir R. In io rs much r a th er exten d t h e pr i v il eges w hi c h t h ose tot at present enjoyed, th a n cur t a il th em ; b ut t h a t was Lod t hen nco the question ; the question related to literature only ; 0 ofzylirabipra lite ry bonss marixon could justly be made between the produc genius, 29 permanent as they were ad sp d . and works of mechanical ingenuity, which might eo ilv or for - t superseded by the inventions of more skilful, of unate persons.—( Hear, hear, hear.) A good deal fie'_'!apprebensi existed on this subject. For instance, n 'ol been stated that, by the maintenance of their so B , ° P el Y the Uaiversity of Oxford had made some works reudoaoree as to run them up to a large price ; and that Cla 's History of the Rebellion was sold, a large paper e k °l , Y for eighteen guineas, a small paper copy for Seven. been the fact was, that in 1807 an edition of that work had flueln published at three guineas. Was it just that the fa ridge,r °f such men as Wordsworth, and Scott, and Cole tited) and Southey were to be deprived of the property cre enri y the minds of their illustrious progenitors, in order to eh the families of John Murray and Thomas Longman? Notwithstanding all that had been said by the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General, the question was not one be tween the author and the public, but a question between the overgrown publishers of London and some one or two other cities on the one hand, and the literary men of England on the other. Many instances might be mentioned to show how imperatively justice demanded the passing of some mea sure of this description. He would mention only one : a distinguished individual, whom he had the honour of know ing, having employed great labour and consumed much time in the preparation of a very important and very valuable work, had the mortification to find that his book was pirated. almost immediately after its publication, by a Society of which many of the Honourable Gentlemen opposite were members. It was not just to raise the expectations of literary men and men of science in such a manner as to induce them to engage in works from which the public were the greatest be nefitters, and then to deprive their children or their inheritors , from those advantages which if they had employed their ta lents in any secular pursuit would certainly be secured to them —( Hear, hear.) The literary men of England were not to be laughed out of court by the sneers of the Solicitor-General.— (Hear, hear.) Would any man deny that England derived oval benefit and honour from the labours of those of her sons who were engaged in the pursuit of literature? And was it fair, when millions had been deriving pleasure and instruc tion from the works of Scott, Southey, and Wordsworth, that the Legislature should now turn round upon them and say, " You lived and wrote under a different state of the law; therefore, you ought to be content with what the law then gave you." After some further remarks which were not distinctly audible, the Honourable Baronet concluded by observing that he entirely concurred in the motion of his Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr. Seargeant Talfourd) and sincerely hoped the the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time. Mr. PR YME was opposed to the Bill. The question was not whether the author received an adequate protection, which he (Mr. Pryme) maintained he did, under the old common or statute law, but whether the period during which the copy right of works of literature was to endure should be extended from twenty-eight to sixty years ; and:then followed the ques tion, whether the law as it at present stood did not afford a sufficient remuneration, or at least a sufficient protection to the author. The Honourable and Learned Member for Read ing (Mr. Sergeant Talfourd) maintained that the price of books had declined and the sale increased since the period had been extended from fourteen to twenty-eight years, and thence he concluded that the au th or an d th e pu bli c h a d been mutually bcnefitted. But was not the true cause of the diminution of price to be found in the improvements which of late years had taken place in the manufacture of paper and the facility of printing ? The Honourable Gentleman then adverted to the works of Adam Smith and of Gibbon, of which new editions, with very valuable emendations, had been published within a period very much short of sixty years from the death of either of those authors. Had such a law as that proposed by the Learned Seargeant obtained, these editions could not have appeared, and the public thereby would have been deprived of much valuable and useful information. Under these circum stances he should decidedly oppose the motion for the second reading of this Bill. _ _ Mr. - D'ISR AE L I, after some preliminary remarks, ob served that the question was this : whether the law would re cognise any property in literature ; and if so, what degree of property it would recognise ? For his own part, he confessed he could not understand what accident or quality there was in property which was not to be found in works of literature. They required great industry, great care, great skill, and oftentimes much capital in the production ; they assumed a visible, palpable, and tangible form ; wareouses might be filled with them ; ships might be freighted with them ; and the tenure by which they were held was in his opinion superior to that of all other property, for it was original.—( Hear.) It was tenure which did not exist in a doubtful title, which did not spring from any adventitious circumstance—it was not found—it was not purchased—it was not prescriptive ; it was primitive—it was original ; it was the most natural of all titles, because it was the most simple and least artificial. It was paramount and sovereign, because it was a tenure by creation.--( Loud cheers.) The fault therefore that he found, not with the object of the Bill, but with the Bill itself, was that the title held by such a paramount tenure should for a moment be compromised.—( Hear.) If it were admitted that the tenure was original, and was held by creation, he could not see what right the Legislature or the public had to interfere with it. The question now raised could not be met by a panegyric upon the ex isting statute law ; it could be met only by a fair dis cussion of the principles to which the Honourable and Learned Sergeant's proposal tended. If the Bill were read a second time, as he hoped and believed it would, the points raised by the Honourable and Learned Solici tor-General, with respect to abridgments and compendiums, might be discussed at the proper time, namely, in Com mittee. He (Mr. D'lsraeli) intended to confine himself merely to those points which trenched upon the principle of the Bill. It had been brought forward as an objection to the Bill (and this point was particularly urged in the petitions which had been presented upon the subject) that the effect of such a measure would be to prevent the republication of man y valuable works. Now the Legislature must, at all times, deal with general principles. A man possessed of property would, of course, wish to enjoy it. But if he (Mr. D'lsraeli) possessed a freehold estate, and did not choose to cultivate it, he presumed that no Gentleman would come down to the House and propose to re peal the law of trespass, to enable some other person to step in, and to cultivate a property to which he had no title, for his own personal benefit.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") It was not to be forgotten that in literary property there was a double stimulus to production—there was not merely for tune, but fame—not merely riches, but glory. It was said that a Bill like that proposed by the Hon. and Learned Ser geant, would increase the price of books. That was a clues. tion which he left to be decided by an appeal to facts. Take the classical and standard works of half-a-dozen authors of the present century—authors, the copyright of whose works remained either with themselves or with their families, and compare the price at which they were now published with the price at which other works were published, where the copyright existed with the booksellers. It would be found that where the copyright remained with the author, or with Iris family, the price was a hundred per cent. less than it was during any period of the last generation. If the works of Scott, Byron, Southey, Wordsworth, and even of a relative of his own, were compared with the editions, now published by what was called " the trade," of Hume, Gibbon, Robertson, Blackstone, Burke, and others, it would be found that the works of the former, possessing all the advantages of the most exquisite mechanical skill, were delivered to the public at half the price at which they could formerly be obtained. There was no ground, therefore, for that objection to the Bill. But there was in fact a literary monopoly in existence—a mo nopoly, not in favour of authors, but of booksellers. The object of the present Bill was to remove that monopoly, to protect the author, and to benefit the public. The Hon. Member ( Mr. Pryme) who spoke last had alluded to the works of Gibbon as affording an instance of the beneficial working of the law as it now stood. He (Mr. D'lsraeli) thought if the Hon. Gentleman had taxed his ingenuity he could hardly have hit upon a case which went more against his judgment. Here was a man who absolutely devoted up wards of twenty years of his life to a work which was one of the greatest monuments of our literature—a man who at the time his work appeared was considered a very successful author. He (Mr. D'lsraeli) remembered a passage, familiar no doubt to every Hon. Gentleman whom he addressed, in which the great author told the world with pride and exulta tion that he had actually received 6,000/. from the booksellers, adding that that sum exactly amounted to the money he had been obliged to lay out in the purchase of the books of refer ence which were necessary to enable him to complete his work. --(Hear, hear.) But supposing that that had not been the case, what, in point of fact, did the remuneration amount to? Divide the 6,0001. by the twenty years employed in the pro duction of the work, and it would be found that the reward to the illustrious Gibbon for all his labour amounted only to 300/. a yeas.—( Hear.) The work of Gibbon was one of the great standard works in our literature ; Gibbon had long been dead —the copyright had long remained in the hands of the book sellers. Had the public derived any advantage from these cir cumstances ?—( Hear.) Far from it. Until the present moment no cheap edition had appeared. Upwards of fifty years had elapsed since one adventurous bookseller had dared to break through the monopoly of his brethren, and to give a new and cheap edition of Gibbon, with the emendations of a scholar.-- ( Hear.) The remuneration to Gibbon for all his labour amounted, in point of fact, to nothing, because, as he had be fore stated, the 6,000/. paid for the copyriget only just covered the sums he had expended in the purchase of books of refe rence. It was plain, therefore, that if Gibbon had been a poor man, or if he had been a man with a large family, the lite rature of England could never have been enriched by his im mortal work. Compare with the case of Gibbon that of a man of the present day, of learning not less distinguished, and as a master of composition unrivalled amongst English writers —Dr. Southey. He (Mr. D'lsraeli) knew that more than a quarter of a century ago, Dr. Southey wished to de vote his life to a work more comprehensive than that of Gibbon, and for learning more remarkable, perhaps, than any that would ever adorn the language—a history of the monastic orde rs; b ut, as i t was probable that such a work would occupy more than a quarter of a century in the exe cution, Dr. Southey was obliged to give up the idea in consequence of the state of the law with respect to literary property.—( Hear, hear.) Ha (Mr. D'lsraeli) hoped that the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time. He called upon the House to support it, not only because it would be just and generous to do so, but because it would be politic. It was to be remembered that literary men exer cised a power, oftentimes an irresistible power, over the inha bitants of every State. Was it politic then to debar from the rights of property those who were the creators of opinion? Mr. WARD, notwithstanding all that had been so ably and so ingeniously advanced by the Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down, as well as by the Honourable and Learned Sergeant by whom this measure was introduced, felt that he could not support the Bill. He could not perceive why any distinction should be made between the fruits of mind and of intellect, and the fruits of ingenuity and mechani cal skill. Ho thought that the protection afforded to authors under the existing law was amply sufficient. He should, there, oppose the second reading. Mr. MILNE S supported the Bill. The honourable mem ber for Sheffield had said that he considered all property in literary works to be entirely factitious. Upon this point he (Mr. Milnes) only would make one remark, with a view to show that in certain periods of history, when property of every description was most insecure, and when principle was least acknowledged, even then the principle of copyright stood the test of public opinion. In the Constituent Assembly of France in 1723, and at a time when the most unjust laws were passing every day through that assembly, copyright was acknowledged for the whole term of the life of the author, and ten years after. This he thought would prove that there was some principle inherent in this species of property which was not likely to be put aside by the argu ments of honourable gentlemen who were opposed to the pre sent measure as they appeared to imagine. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was ♦ery reluctant to give a silent vote in support of the Bill of his Honourable and Learned Friend, in consequence of so much opposition to it having come from gentlemen in whose opinions he generally concurred. The debate had been opened to a con siderable extent by his Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicit tor-General, in whose judgment he (the Chancellor of the Ex chequer) generally placed great reliance. If he could adopt the views of his Honourable and Learned Friend, and the ob servations which had fallen from other Honourable Gentle men, he should certainly be prepared to go much farther than they appeared willing to do. For if their arguments were correct they ought to follow them up by a repeal of the exist.. ing law of copyright altogether.—( Hear, hear.) Hi s H on. Friend the Member for Sheffield contended that there was no property - in literature ;if not, how could he, or those who agreed with him in opinion, defend the law now on the sta tute book ? The argument of his Hon. Friend was, there was no property in the literary productions of the mind beyo n d what was the creation of the law. Why , all property was the creation of the law.—( Hear, hear.) The principle of all pro eenreeartatlunusueffutlreaslatl,e: tseedfuvtlniethsst.helfr,eetuhgenmitituhneruef thiswa f s p n e e r t t e y ty r . esol p v r e u ri p i e t r s t e y lf u i f n e t v o e a ry p k ri t n n e d ip ty le as o lhe g particular species of property, it became as much entitled to justified n e r b a y l the protection of the State as any other description of pro. the use f p u r l i n n e c s s p l c e on o n f ec u perty ; and as to the question whether it was literary property or not, that became wholly immaterial , and the argument founded upon such a distinction entirely fell to the g roun d . The Solicitor-General seemed to put the question altogether upon this principle, that under the existing state of things there was extracted from the genius of authors as much as it was possible to obtain from them ; and that having obtained this maximum of good, the present question was a totally immaterial one, and was not necessary to be entertained by the House. But that was not a just way of dealing with a subject of this description. Between the case of a patent in vention and the present subject an analogy had been drawn, the fallacy of which he would presently endeavour to point out ; but supposing, on an application for a patent to protect some mechanical invention, it could be shown that as much benefit could be produced to the community and the same amount of ingenious mechanism be obtained without granting e patent right, still that would not satisfy the fair expectations of the party, nor ought it to satisfy society at large, because the public interest would certainly be ultimately injured if those who were great public benefactors were not enabled to obtain for their labours an adequate reward. An adequate reward was one of the elements they were bound to take into consideration when discussing the present question. He was anxious to hare that principle first discussed ; they might afterwards discuss whether by making the reward more adequate to authors they would or not be conferring a greater benefit on the public. The case of Mr. Southey, which had been mentioned by the Honourable Member for Maidstone (Mr. D'lsraeli), was one showing that a work had not been produced in consequence of the inadequacy of the reward ; and how many more of such cases were there, he might ask 2—( Hear, hear.) But it was objected that we ought to bring forward these illustrious names. If we argued the question of inadequacy of reward generally, we were called upon to produce our cases ; and then, when we did so, we were told, because these were great and glorious names, that we had no right to reason in reference to those particular cases, and that we were leading the House astray by our sentiment. He confessed he should be sorry to approach this subject, or discuss it, without sentiment; and was it much to discuss the genius of the great among mankind with that feeling which others might call sentiment, but which he would call well-directed enthusiasm ?—( Cheers.) Then let them take the case of Mr. Wordsworth. Was there a single person competent to form an opinion upon the subject who would contend that it was just that whilst that illustrious man was conferring a boon upon his country and the world, the law should at his death deprive his family of that property which was the creation of his own genius ? The way in which those were dealt with who supported this Bill was most hard. ' When they argued upon the general question they were told to bring forward their examples ; and when they did bring forward particular examples, they were taxed with reasoning from sentiment and enthusiasm, which the great names they produced naturally gave rise to. With respect to the analogy between invention in machinery and literary production at tempted to be set up, he should like to know in what that analogy consisted. If you were to confer upon any patentee an immortality of his patent, it would be of no use whatsoever to him. An invention which was of importance in 1830 would become superseded by another invention in 1837 ; a p a tent right, therefore, if granted in perpetuity, would, in nine cases out of ten, not benefit the inventor, whereas a copyright gave an enduring benefit to the author. Where, then, was the ana logy between the two cases ? Would those who urged this argument give him the benefit of their own analogy? Accord ing to the present law of patents, if a patentee could make out a case before the Privy Council, he could obtain a prolongation of his patent.—(A Member—For a certain time.) Yes, for a certain time; but that was the principle of this Bill. If they permitted an extension of the period for the benefit of pa tentees when eases were made out, why should they not with respect to literature permit a like extension, on cases being made out, for the benefit of authors ? He only asked for the exertions of the highest range of intellect the same degree of reward that was bestowed upon the lower and se condary powers of the mind. However much disposed the Hon. Member for Kilkenny might be to raise the pretensions of genius in its application to mere mechanical inventions over the powers of intellect as applied to literature, he (the Chan cellor of the Exchequer) would ask, whence mechanical inventions themselves proceed if it were not from the impulse given to the general mind by the works of those of loftier genius and of a more comprehensive range of intellect ( Hear, hear.) But he wished it not to be supposed that he undervalued the claims of printers, and publishers, and all the other parties engaged in the mechanical process of getting up the works of authors. On the contrary, he was ready to extend the fullest consideration to those claims, and he, for one, was far from thinking that they preyed upon the brains of nen of genius. He trusted, however, that the House would not, after the cases of inadequacy of reward in the instances of some of the greatest names that shed a lustre on British literature that had come before them, reject this Bill upon its second reading without even taking into consideration any one of its propositions. Gen tlemen had objected to some of those propositions, and espe cially to the term of sixty years, but these were points open to discussion in Committee. The supporters of the Bill did not feel themselves pledged to all its clauses. He could not sit down without repeating the sentiment which he had on a former occasion expressed, and in which he wag sure all present participated, even those most strongly opposed to the measure—the sentiment of delight with which he had heard his Honourable and Learned Friend, and his opinion of the peculiar appropriateness with which this motion had been placed in the hands of one of the greatest ornaments of our living literature, who, with a manliness and spirit that did him the highest credit, had come forward, not upon an exciting po- Ftical subject, nor upon one which seemed to be very attractive to the House at large, but to discharge his duty to that body of literary men to which he himself belonged. Mr. GROTE felt it his duty to oppose the second read ing of this Bill, and he would shortly state the grounds upon which he did so, and with a view to what interest it was that his object was confined. There had been a good deal of argument upon the fact that the principal petitions against the Bill had been presented from publishers, printers, and booksellers. He wished to state distinctly that his opposition was not founded upon any peculiar sympathy for either of those three classes ; but most distinctly and exclusively upon the feeling be had that this Bill would have th e effect—if it had any effect at all—of narrowing the circle of the public amongst whom literature would circulate. It was upon that view solely that he opposed the Bill. If gen tlemen who supported the measure would show him that he was in error—if they would show him that printing under a copyright would be cheaper than printing without a ,copy right, his opposition to the Bill would be withdrawn:, But, he must say, if that had been the fact, it was his firm belief that the House would have heard nothing whatever of this. Bill.—( Hear, hear.) He would put it to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, what would be the case in the event of this Bill passing? Would not the representatives of the au thors dispose of all their interest in the sixty years' copyright for a sum in hand; and should we not be still liable to the painful spectacle of some son or grandson of some eminent historian— if of an indiscreet character—suffering under poverty and dis tress ? He would venture to say that neither this Bill nor any other that might be devised, could rescue the son or grandson of a literary man from the consequences of improvidence and indiscretion. Much as they might all lament this, and much as their sympathies might be touched by it, yet it was quite impossible to prevent them from suf fering the consequences of their own imprudence. A good deal had been said during the present discussion as if this were a question between authors and publishers, and not between authors and the public. Now he would apply to any gentleman whether there was any one department of commercial enterprise in which competition was more in tense and more active than in the publishing trade. It was impossible to suppose that publishers in the present day could derive more than an ordinary remuneration for capital and trouble employed in trade. Therefore, if by any alteration of the law of copyright they were to impart to the author a greater profit than he now received from his works, that bene fit would be obtained at the expense of the reading public who purchased them. But in his opinion, whenever a question arose between the interest of any one class of persons and the interest of the public, it was the duty of this House to give it' decision in favour of the latter. The Hon. Gentleman con cluded by expressing his belief that the Bill was replete with mischief to the public, doubtful in its pecuniary results as to the authors themselves, and calculated to rob those authors of that which he was persuaded they set a greater value upon than any pecuniary gain —a wide and enduring circle of lite rary and intrinsic admiration. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he felt bound to offer some observations en the Bill of the Honourable and Learned Member, to which he must give his opposition. lii one of the petitions which he had had the honour to present from the city of Edinburgh, it was stated that when the sta tute of the Bth of Anne passed into a law, there were only two printing presses engaged in that city, while there were now sixty, at which no less than 8,000 men were employed ; and notwithstanding these facts being represented, yet the system as it at present existed was objected to, although it had produced the beneficial effects which were pointed out. He was prepared to admit that there were instances in which it was necessary to extend some additional reward to literary men ; but he would ask whether the House would content itself with legislating for these rare and uncommon instances by altering the whole existing system ? He would point out the plan which suggested itself to his mind as being a just and proper one. In the case of the Patent Act since the law had been passed four years ago he had been called upon, in his office of Attorney-General, by the Privy Council, to investigate cases in which it should be proper that an exten sion of patents should be granted, and, in the course of that inquiry, it was found that there were cases in whi c h t h e ex tension he referred to might with justice be granted, the patents being of so valuable a character as to entitle the par ties to such a step being adopted. Might not the same course be adopted in the present case, and would not Mr. Wordsworth then be fully rewarded for the labours which he had under gone ; and might not the heirs of Sir Walter Scott be placed in a situation in which they might enjoy the benefit of his works ; and might not Abbotsford then still remain in them as their property ? He saw no objection at all to such a course being adopted, and he should try to recommend some such plan to the consideration of the Hon. and Learned Member for Reading, whose Bill it was his painful duty to oppose. The Hon. Member for London had already referred to the eril effects which might be produced by the measure ; but he bad not mentioned one which he was confident would ensue. He was of opinion that it would paralyse in dustry, and that it would do little for the great mass of authors. The provisions of the Bill were that the author or the owner of the copyright should have the benefit of it until the death of the former, and that it should be enjoyed by the representatives of the author for sixty years afterwards. But that would confer no benefit on the author, and it would, besides, be injurious to the public, because the consequence would be that no petty author would avail himself of the provisions of the measure, and would not reprint his work ; while, if it were reprinted by any one else, actions would be brought, and it would give rise to a great deal of pettifog ging legal proceedings. This objection, however, would be entirely removed by his proposition ; and by that, too, he thought that the object which they all had in view, namely, the proper reward of authors, would be secured. He should feel it his duty to vote for the ameadment which had been proposed, that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months. Mr. C. W. WYNN said, that he always entertained the greatest respect for the legal opinions of the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General, but he must differ from what he understood him to hare said, that the law as it now stood had existed since the statute of the Bth of Anne. —(No, no.) It appeared to him that that was the effect of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's observations; but every literary man who was acquainted with the history of the country knew that copyright was enjoyed in perpetuity after that, and that it was not limited by the Act of Anne until a decision which subse quently took place. If it were right that authors should have an increased compensation, he had no hesitation in saying that the adoption of that course would increase the price of the book. The system proposed would apply to all classes of books, as well to those of a superior quality as to books which were of a description calculated to minister to the bad taste and bad feelings of the people.--(Hear, hear.) The copy right in bee'ss of such a class was of no value, but the reason for which he was willing to extend the law was for the protection of those works which always mot with the public approbation, and to which, although they might not suit the taste of the public at the time of their being pub lished, future ages might look with respect and admiration. All property of whatever character rested on law ; but on what did law itself stand but on right reason and good sense? He would ask the House, therefore, if they desired at all to hold out an inducement to a person to devote long laborious years to the benefit of society?—and if so, he would say that they must adopt some such course as that suggested. There were many instances within his own knowledge where some such interference in favour of authors was necessary, and he might first mention that of his excellent and respected friend, Mr. Southey, whom he bad had the honour to call his friend for the last fifty years. He knew how small the re muneration was which he had received for many of the works which he had produced by the most laborious efforts, and he knew also that he had received even more for those of his ephemeral works, as he might call them, which had appeared in the reviews and other periodicals. He might mention the case of Mr. Hallam also, who had certainly contributed much to the good of the public, and yet he had only been able to produce his work upon the His tory of the Middle Ages a volume at a time, there being no call for them, and the means not being afforded him of pro ducing them all at once. He might adduce another case, that of Johnson's Dictionary. It was a work of the greatest use, and it was when first produced a compilation of former works, and yet in forty years a new edition was required and was pub lished, containing many new words; but yet the booksellers said, " We do not care for your new edition, we will not deal with you, we will stick to our old copyright of the standard work, and you may publish your new edition." But if this should continue, would not the public be deprived of the im proved editions of works, for the same state of things would apply to other works? The Right Honourable Gentleman concluded by expressing his intention to support the principle of the Hon. and Learned Member's Bill, and to vote that it should be read a second time. Mr. J. JERVIS said that he should recommend his lion. and Learned Friend the Member for Reading, before he per sisted in pressing forward his measure, to consider well the suggestion thrown out by the Learned Attorney-General; and he should feel bound, if he did not do so, with great reluctance to vote against the second reading of the Bill. The House, in considering any measure which was proposed to be adopted, ought not to reason by what had already taken place for what might occur in future, and should not draw inferences that similar events would occur at a future time. It was admitted that, before the case of " Miller v. Taylor," the copyright was perpetual, and yet many cases might be brought forward in which, although this perpetuity existed, authors were in the greatest distress and want. If the House were to believe the evidence given by Mr. Hansard in 1834, that he would not exchange the eleven copies of all works which were required to be given to public bodies for the extension, they might readily imagine that the authors would get nothing by the present measure. The House would not sanction a law to be adopted with regard to literary property which was different from the law relating to any other property, and he could not but express his opinion that the introduction of the law proposed would have no effect, for if the bookseller were to be deprived of his property in the copyright on the death of the author, would not the price first given for the work be materially decreased ? The case of Mr. Hallam was directly in point on the subject, and the reason which prevented booksellers from publishing standard works of sterling merit was the uncertainty of getting a re turn for the necessarily large outlay which they made. The question was, not whether the author or publisher should have a remuneration, but whether the author was to receive more, or the public to be deprived of the benefit of his works. But if an increased length of time were to be given for copyrights to rue, the public would gain nothing, and the only effect would be that the value of the work would be in creased, and that money would be put into the pockets of the publisher. E. Sir B. SUGD EN would say a few words on the ground on which he intended to oppose the Bill. He could not agree with the Learned Attorney-General in the opiuion which he had expressed, and the plan which he had proposed—( Hear, litar)—for he thought that however advantageous the prin ciplehpeose thinking this Bill. that If th h e e right were might be t o the g reat ma ss of individuals, it would be impossible to carry it r e i into effect sthmepublic,ll. as wi t t hhe were, and a du d e considerationth he e that wo ualsd per lisps n I o t the rights of all p arties. He re g r etted , however, that it was on strong groun c e ould mus n t ot 1p Op o c ookp)troi support it to ; d of tifieh'itspu°bvilnis butc belongedin h th te at they ey obtained tamed any v a l ue . Th is queg y through _ flee, however, did not de p end on abstra ct right, but on statute that he t h he existence d of the law, and it was therefore a question of profit and loss as it stood on the statu e te c . hre H h e y m fe l e t an e s q o u f all t y he as ßi d l e l s n ir o o w us he th fo e re H tohne . and Learned Member for Reading to effect the object which he proposed to s objected to the extent of time o n n w i h h ich th t e he re r a ig l h p t ro o p f e t r h ty e copy right. In twenty years even the identity . of the representa tives be lost, and if the o s e s e d d that to he carry y o b of an author might House should go length of time would be introduced which beyond that, tHoowuisseic,hbuitt was would be lost. The principle which he proposed to public eascopnrfoeps advocate bad already be law ; and he repeated that if a long term were determined on, of tracing the representatives of an author would be the means would be most inconveer:enactiedandupi lost. He would ask the Hon. and Learned Member himself, whose works were much and most deservedly admired, if at the time o f his writing the extent of time for which the copy right should last ever entered his imaginatihn ? And he would say that he was quite confident that no such thought ever e ntered on the mind of any of the celebrated writers of the day. Therefore, as he objected to the length of time for which the proposed right should exist, he contended that its duration should not extend beyond more than fire or seven years, which would be unreasonable, and would afford the author's representatives the means of providing for his family, or of paying his debts; but he could not help saying that sixty years was as much as a perpetuity, and it was quite use less, for at the end of that time the books would be unsaleable. To the smaller extent he thought it might go, but he thought so only because it would otherwise lead to no benefit with re gard to the reversioner, the public, to whom all should go. It was on these grounds that he desired to oppose the Bill of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. Lord MAHON then addressed the House, but in such a low tone of voice that most of his observations were inaudible in the gallery. We understood him to say that he should consider it a most deplorable circumstance that literary men should sacrifice their independence for temporary purposes. Several allusi ons had made to the case of Mr. Words worth, who from some peculiar circumstances had not until lately attained that general popularity which his distinguished merits and attainments entitled him to, and who only re cently received a comparatively large sum for the sale of the copyright of an edition of his works. Now, would it not have been this Gentleman a disgrace to the country that should lose this reward of his literary labours just at the moment the public were beginning to appreciate his at tainments? The rejection of this measure wou ld be an inducement t o an author to sacrifice his own aspirations to temporary popularity. On this ground alone he con tended that the people were deeply interested in the suc cess of this Bill. For the sake of the public, and for the im provement of popular taste, he contended it was the duty of the Legislature to support a measure like the present, the object of which was the securing the independence of literary men. On every principle of expediency and justice lie felt bound to respect support a measure like the present. to the objections to this Bill, he felt satisfied that those that had that night been urged rather applied to its details than than to the principle of it. Several of the objections that had been urged were against all copyright at all. In deed in the petition that had been so much alluded to in the course of the discussion, it was stated that all copyright was ; a monopoly, and, t h ere f ore , was ill ega l . If thi s ar gument ' as were admitted a copyright for twenty-eight years was Ft iust much a monopoly and illegal as for a longer period. or his own part he did not think that the arguments !hat had been urged were entitled to much weight. He admitted that great benefits had been conferred on literature by printers and pub lishers, but he thought that in the present instance those parties had mistaken their own interests. Mr. WARBURTON thought that the interests of the public had been altogether passed over in the consideration of the present subject. As for the assertion that the opposi tion to the Bill had been got up by those who were interestea in the matter, he would beg the House to rec oll e ct that this was generally the case, and that in most questions the parties in stance to directed public attention in the first to the merits of the particular case. In the present case he thought that the public were deeply indebted to the par ties who were said to be peculiarly interested for having called public attention to this, in his opinion, most per nicious Bill. He was convinced that it would do more injury to literature and to literary men than publishers et- printers ever could do, as it would tend to check the spread of literary productions among the people. It had been said, that authors would willingly forego a temporary popularity and large sums for a work if they could be insured a sure and certain return, but he was satisfied this was a fallacious notion. He was convinced that publishers would not give one farthing more for the copyright of a work if it were secured to them for the long period pro posed in this Bill, than they would under existing circum stances. The truth was, that p u bli s h ers were lik e o th er me n engaged in mercantile pursuits, a n d th e i r o bj ec t was t o ge t a rapid sale, and to obtain a return of their capital in as short a period as possible, and they were not likely to look to a long duration of copy r i g ht as a matter o f consequence. It h ad been said that this measure wou ld protect poorer aut h ors. He did not agree in this opinion, for poorer authors would be just as much disposed as ever to sell their copyrights. He also objected most strongly to the suggestion of the Attorney- General that it should be left to the Privy Council to deter mine whether there should or should not be an extension of the period of copyright in any particular case. Suppose the Privy Council was composed of Tories, was it likely such a body would extend the period of the copyright of a work in defence of popular rights? The author of such a production would not have the slightest chance before such a tribunal. Again, the author of a Tory work would have no chance of obtaining a prolongation of the period of his copyright before a Whig Privy Council.—(Laughter.) He trusted that the printers and publishers would succeed in defeating this Bill, as he was convinced that if it succeeded it would prove most detrimental to literature. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he only in tended that the question of the renewal of copyright should be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which was composed of certain of the Judges and other Learned persons, and where there was no political feeling. To this tribunal the question of the renewal of patents was referred. Mr. Sergeant TAL FOURD shortly replied. He did not think that he was called upon to abandon the Bill in conse quence of the suggestion of his Honourable and Learned Friend the Attorney-General to refer the question of copy right to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ; for his own part, he doubted whether the previous studies of a law yer's life peculiarly fitted him for the consideration of literary works. Many Members seemed to labour under the impres sion that it was the custom for authors to sell their copyrights is full, but it so happened that they seldom sold more than the copyright of a single edition of a limited number of impres sioas. This was the case with Sir Walter Scott's works, in whose family the property of the copyright of that distin guished man's literary works was still vested. This was also the case with Southey, Wordsworth, and other eminent lite rary men. The House then divided— For the seeond reading 39 Against it Majority The Bill was then read a second time. On the motion that the Bill be committed, Mr. P. H. HOWARD moved as an amendment, that it be referred to a Select Committee up stairs. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD opposed the motion, on the ground that it would be more fully and fairly discussed in the Committee of the whole House. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that it would be fairer to have the discussion on the details of the Bill in the House. Mr. J. JERVIS said thatit would be almost impossible to - proceed with the Bill before a Select Committee, and satis factorily examine the legal bearing of the different clauses. Mr. HUME was of opinion that the parties who had peti tioned the House on the subject were entitled to be heard at the Bar, and when this had been done it might be expedient to refer the matter to a Select Committee. Sir E. B. SUGDEN was satisfied that there was ample evidence before the House to enable it to come to a satisfac tory decision. The House was perfectly competent to declare its opinion on the question without further inquiry ; it would, therefore, be useless labour to send the Bill to a Select Committee. Mr. WARBURTON was favourable to having the matter discussed in a Committee of the whole House, as he thought that it could be more effectually opposed there than in a Com. mittee up stairs. Mr. P. H. HOWARD said that he voted for the second reading of the Bill ; and all that he was anxious for in moving his amendment was that the interests of all parties should be regarded. The House then divided— For the amendment 3l Against it Majority —7 The Bill was then ordered to be committed on Wednesday next. The other Orders of the Day wore then disposed of, and ,he House adjourned at half-past ten o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY DI VISION S. COPYRIGHT BILL. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.) WEDNESDAT; AYRII. 25. Order for Second Reading read; Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Bill be now read a second time :"—Amend ment proposed, to leave out the word " now," and at the end of the Question to add the words upon this day six months :" Question put, " That the word now' stand part of the Question :" —The House divided : MAJORITY-AYES, 39. Arland, T. D.—West Somerset Ingham, R. -South Shields Ad ire, Lord—Glamorganshire Law, Hon C. E.—Cambridge Univ. Atwood, W.—Greenwich Liddell, Hon. H.—North Durham Attwood, M.—Whitehaveli Mackenzie, Thomas—Ross-shire Barnard, E. G.—Greenwich M.l.eod, R.—lnverness Barrington, Lord—Berksh.re Mahon, Viscount— Hertford Blakcmore, Richard—Wells Maule, W. H.—Carlow Brocklehurst, J.— Alacclesfield Milnes, R M.—Pontefract Browne, R. D.—Mayo Morpeth, Lord—Yorkshire Burrell, Sir C.—Shoreham Morris, I).—Carmarthen Cavendish, Hon. G. H.—N. Derby Praed, W. M —Aylesbury Chichester, J. P. B.—Barnstaple Pringle, Alexander—Selkirkshire Dalrymple, Sir A.—Brighton Rice, Right Hon. T. S.—Cambridge i !arby, George—East Sussex Seymour, Lord—Totness .D'lsraeli, B.—Maidstone 'Ferment, J. E.—Belfast Ellis, John—Newry Vigors, N. A.—Carlow Co ---- )1 Freshfield, J. W.—Penrvn Wynn, Right Hon. C. W.—Mont- Gladstone, W.E.—Newark-on-Trent gomcryshire Gordon, Robert—Windsor Graham, Sir James—Pembroke Grattan, James—Wicklow C.. Howard, P. H.—Carlisle TELLERS. Talfourd, Mr. Serjeant —Reading Inglis, Sir It. H.—Oxford University MINORITY- Briscoe, J. L—Westbury Broad ley, Henry—East Yorkshire mrotherton ' J.—Salford Buller, Sir J. Yarde—Devonshire Campbell, Sir John—Edinburgh Collins, W.—Warwick Courtenay, P.—Bridgewater Denistoun, J.—Glasgow Duckworth, Samuel—Leicester Finch, F.—Walsall ;rote, George—London Hawes, Benjamin—Lambeth Hayter ' W. G.—Wells Jervis, J.—Chester Jervis, S.—Bridport Langdale, Hon .C.—Kearesborough Lefevre,-C. Shaw—North Hants Lynch, A. H. —Galway Muskett, George A.—St. Alban's - -NOES, 34. O'Brien, W. S.—Limerick Co. O'Brien, Cornelius—Clare lOssulston, Lord—N., Northumber- land: Pryme, George—Cambridge Richards, Richard—Merionethshire Rolfe, Sir R. M.—Penrhyn Strutt, Edward —Derby Sugden, Sir E.—Ripon Tancred, H. W.—Banbury Thornely, Thos.—Wolverhampton Villiers, C. P.—Wolverhampton Wakley, Thomas- Finsbury Ward, H. G.—Shetlield Williams, William—Coventry Yates, J. Ashton -Carlow TILLLERS. Hume, Joseph—.KilLenny Warburton, H.—Bridport ,lotion made, and Question proposed,—'• That the Billbc com mitted to a Committee of the whole House : "—Amendment pro posed, to leave out from the words " Committee of the whole House," in order to add the words " Select Committee," instead thereof :—Question put, " That the words ' Committee of the whole House' stand part of the Question :"—The House divided : MAJORITY—AYES, 38. D'lsr4eli, Benjamin Milnes, Richard Freshfield, J. W Morpeth, Viscount Gladstone, W. E. ltiuskett, George A. Gordon, Robert Praed, W. M. Graham, Sir J. Pringle, A. Grattan, J. - Rice, T. S. Ingham, Itaert Richards, R. Law, Hon. C. E. Rolfe, Sir R. M. Leferre, C. Shaw Sugden, Sir Edward Liddell, H. T. Tancred, H. W. Mackenzie, Thomas TELLERS. M.1.,e0d, R. Dillon, W. D. Mahon, Lerd Talfoursl,:T. N. Maule, W. H. Inglis, Sir R. H. Acland, T. D. Adare, Lord Attwood, Attwood, M. Barrington, Viscount Illakernore, B. Broadley, Henry 13rocklehurst, J. Browne, R. 1). Buller, Sir J. Lurrell, Sir C. M. Cavendish, Hon. G. Chichester, J. P. * Darby, George Barnard, E. G. Briscoe, J. Br.therton, J. Chalmers, Patrick Collins, W. Courtenay, T. P. Dennistoun, J. Duckworth, S. Finch, Francis Grote, G. Hawes, B. Hayter, W. G. :NORITY-NOES, Jervis, J. Jervis, S. Langdale, Hon. C. Lynch, A. H. Morris, David O'Brien, Cornelius O'Brien, W. S. Ossulston, Lord Pryine, G. Strutt, Edward Tennent, J. B. Thornely, Thomas Vizors, N. Villiers, Charles P. Wakley, Thomas Warburton, H. Ward, H. G. Williams, W. Yates, J. A. TELLERS. H.ward, P. 11. • Hume, Joseph A Goon EXAMPLE.—A Canadian journalist lately announced the decease of ono of his patrons in the fol lowing terms :—" In him society has lost one of its choicest ornaments; the Church has been deprived of a true believer; his wife of a loving husband, and his children of an affection ate parent ; while we hare lost a subscriber always punctual and regular in his payments I" It is with regret we state that the accident which happened to William Jesse Coope, Esq., of Summerlands, near this town, by his horse running away on Good Friday, proved fatal to that gentleman, who expired on Sunday morn ing, in the 73d year of his ago. During the short period of his residence in this town, Mr. Coope had endeared himself to a large circle of friends.—Falmouth Packet. We learn that the London Working Men's Asso ciation will shortly submit to the country the promised Bill for radically reforming the House of Commons to be called the " People's Charter." , The Reformers of Newcastle-upon-Tyne have sent to town a subscription towards defraying the expenses of the Hull inquiry. If this were more generally done by the Re formers of the north, it would act as an incentive to Liberal candidates in other places. COURT CIRCULAR. Her Majesty held a:Privy Council at one o'clock yesterday' 'afternoon at the New Palace. It was attended by t'se Lord Proident, this First Lord of the Treasury, the Secretaries of State los the Horne and Colonial Departments, the First Lord of the Admiralty, tl:e Secretary at War, the Lord Chamber lain, and the Master or the Horse. The Hon. W. Bathurst nas the Clerk of the Council in waiting. Her Majesty gave audiences to Viscount Melbourne, the Marquis of Lansdowne, and the Marquis Conyngham. The Court was attended by the Controller o'E the Household, Lord Gardner, Lord in Waiting ; Hon. C. IVorr.ly, Groom in Waiting; and Colonel Wcrnyss, Equerry in Waitii.j 7 The Royal dinner party last evening included Vi,:count Melbourne and the Treasurer of the Household. Yesterday was the birthday of the Duchess of Glouceste. - • Her Royal Highness received congratulatory visits from the Princess Augusta, the Duke of Cambridge, Prince George of Cambridge, and other members of the Royal family. The Foreign Ministers and m:kny of the nobility left their names for her Royal Highness at Cloucoster-house. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge honoured Lord and Lady Burghersh with their compny at dinner yesterday. The Duke of Cambridge visited Me Princess Augusta yes terday at Clarence House. Sir Francis Head (late Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Ca nada) arrived in town yesterday. Sir Frartni,at transacted busi ness at the Colonial-office. After the breaking-up of the Privy Council at the New Palace, a Cabinet Council was held at the Foreign-Office. It was attended by Viscount Melbourne, the Lord Chaocellor, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord John Russell, Lord Gleoelg. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Earl of Minto, Lord Holland, Mr. Poulett Thomson, and Viscount Howick. The Council sat till five o'clock. The Bishop of London, the Rev. Dr. Milman, and a depu tation, had an interview with Lord John Russell yesterday at the Home-office. The Master-General of the Ordnance had an interview with Lord Glcnclg yesterday at the Colonial-office. Despatches from the Lieutenant-Governor of the Canadas were received yesterday at the Colonial-office. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE HAMPTON SPRING RACES. The Hurdle Meeting, which took place yesterday afternoon on Moulsey Hurst, under the Stewardship of Lord Waldegrave and E. Greatrex, Esq., attrocted a very numerous attendance, afforded plenty of excellent sport, aild was conducted with a precision highly creditable to those who had d2e management of it. The weather, although cold, was favourable, a'd the show of fashionables quite as full as could have been expected. The officers of the different regiments stationed in the neighbourhood mustered in great force, and contributed in no slight degree to the amusements of the day. The following is a sketch of the running A Sweepstakes of 10 sovs. each, with 20 added, for horses bona fide the property of Officers quartered within twentv-five miles of London ; list. 71b. each. Heats, once round and a distance, with four hurdles. Officers to ride. Mr. Miller's br. g. Cleveland Mr. Willan's b. g. Rasper . 0 2 2 Hon. R. Needham's b. m. Graceful Captain Sivenright's hr. in. Duvernay Captain Glegg's b. m. Pauline Each heat won cleverly. The Palace Stakes of 2 sovs. each, with 35 added. Heats, weights, and leaps as last. Winner to be sold for 46 sovs., &c. Captain Glegg's br. m. Pauline Captain Sivenright 1 2 1 Mr. Abbot's b. h. Tremaine Mr. Seffert's Lincoln Lass Mr. Spenser's Titus ... Several others started. Mr. Nightiugale's Atala.nta won the first heat, but was disqualified, and the heat given to Pauline, in consequence of having gone round one set or hurdles instead of over. The last heat was finely contested by Pauline and Tye maine to the last hurdle, where the latter fell lame, and lost a2l chance. The winner was claimed. The sports finished with pony racing. In consequence of the cold and uninviting state of the weather yesterday afternoon, her Majesty the Queen and suite did not take their accustomed exercise on horseback, in the parks, which were almost entirely deserted by the beau monde. The Earl of Albemarle, as Master of the Horse to the Queen, issued cards, yesterday, for a grand full dress banquet, in honour of her Majesty's birthday, on Tt,ursdaY, the 17th May, being the day appointed for the celebratton of the natal day of her Majesty, who will not, however, complete her 19th year until the Thursday following. The Noble Earl returned to Berkeley-square on Saturday last, from Quidenhato Hall, Norfolk. Viscount Galway and his lovely bride, late Miss Pemberton Milnes, left Dover-street yesterday, at one P in a new and handsome travelling chariot and four, for Serlby Hall, Notts. Tho ceremony was performed at the hour 01 ten A.M., at St. George's Church, Hanover-square. Henrietta, the Countess D o cvager of Warwick (daughter of Richard Vernon, Esq., by I,ady Evelyn Gower, seventh daughter of John the first Earl of Go.ver, and widow of John the first Earl of Ossory), died on Frich:v last at her r sidence in Brighton, after an illness of considera - b,!e duration. Her Ladyship was born in August, 1760, and consequently in her 78th year. Despatches, dated sth January, were received j'es terday, at the India Board, from Lord Auckland, th. l Governor-General of India, and from the British officers corn-. mending at the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay. It is said 310 Members of the House of Com mons (all Tories, of course, old light and new) have put down their names to the Peel dinner, which is fixed for the 12th of next month. ALmAcK's.:-.The second assembly of this cele brated re-union took place last evening; but, .owing to her Majesty's second drawing-room being fixed for this day, it was s not very numerously attended. Many of the subscribei.s and their families, also, had not returned to town for the season. The beauty, however, of the fair visiters, the excellence of Weippert's band, and of the music from Lucia de Lammer— moor, conspired to make the ball in every respect worthy of the haute noblesse. The dancing commenced at eleven and ended at half-past two. There were about 250 present. The Emperor of Russia has conferred the Order of St. Vladimir, 4th class, on the Astronomer Federoff, as a re ward fcr his astronomical labours in Siberia. •- - The King of Bavaria has sent the insignia of the Bavarian Order of Merit to M. Brongniart, Member of the Institute, and Director of the Royal PorcchAine Manufactory at Sevres. Baron de Bentinck, First Secretary tu the Dutch Legation, has been appointed Charge d'Affaires for the King of Holland, during the absence of M. D,del, the r:' , ldeut Minister, who leaves town in a few days for the Hague r 9 family affairs. The Baron is connected with the English arn:- tocracy, being of the same family as the Duke of Portland. Report says that the aged Duke of St. Leu (Louis Bonaparte) will shortly marry the beautiful Signora Strozze, and will settle all his property on the young bride.—Allge maine Zeitung. A letter from Vienna of the 15th says—" It is af firmed that the Hungarian dress, ordered by Prince Esterhazy for the coronation of Queen Victoria, will cost half a million of Dutch florins. I can believe this since the Brandebourgs alone, adorned, with silver and diamonds, cost 80;000 florins." —Dutch Paper. MR. BULWER.—The Honourable Member for Lincoln, during the last week, has been amongst his consti tuents, who entertained him at a grand banquet in the City Assembly Rooms, where we learn, by th e Li nco l n G aze tt e . he was met by about two hundred of the principal merchants and influential inl a'iitants of the city. A brilliant addition to, the party was made by the presence of Lords Worsley and Nugent, the Right Hon. C. T. D'Eyncourt, M. P., Henry Handley, Esq., M. P., the Hon. J. F. Strangways, M.P., General Sir De Lacy Evans, M. P., and the High Steward, J. G. Stapylton Smythe, Esq. ; the Mayor presided. Mr. Bulwer on Wednesday evening attended the inaugural meet ing at the People's News Room, on which occasion he gave a luminous Address on the value of such institutions, properly directed. He afterwards attended another political conversa tion meeting, where he met some hundreds of his supporters, to whom lie detailed his views on politics. A similar meeting (says our country Contemporary) was held on Thursday even ing, above-hill, where the discussion took a most animated character, and produced the utmost enthusiasm in voting una nimously the warmest approval of his conduct. These meet ings were all crowded to excess. Mr. Bulwer departed on Friday to join a distinguished party of visitors at the seat of the Right Hon. Charles Tennyson D'Eyncourt, M. P., where we believe he is now remaining to enjoy himself until Parlia ment re-assembles. THE HAGUE, APRIL 23.—Private letters have been received at Amsterdam, which announce that his Royal Highness Prince Henry arri - ed on the 3d of February at Cal cutta, on his return from his tour in the interior of the country. His Royal Highness, who was in perfect health, thought of sailing on the 17th of the same month fur Madras. AU was well on hoard the Bellons and Snelheid. A letter from Dordrecht mentions as an exraordi nary circumstance, that on the 18th of this month,,a : letter was received there, dated Batavia. February 16. This let ter was sent by a steam boat to Bombay, and forwarded by the English mail, by way of Suez and Malta, so that it was only 60 days on the way fro m B a t av i a to its destination. -- Dutch Paper. VISIT . TO THE DUNGEONS OF THE BASTILLE. —Madame Tussaud Has prevailed upon to accompany her uncle and a few friends for that purpose, and whilst descending the narrow stairs her foot slipped, and she was on the point of falling, when she was saved by Robespierre, who catchinc , hold of her just prevented her from coming to the ground, in the language of compliment, observing that it would be a pity that so young and pretty a patriot should have broken her neck in such a horrid place. How little did Madame Tussaud then think that she should, in a fewlyears:after, have his severed head in her lap, in order to take a cast from it after his exc. cution.—Forthcoming Memoirs of Madame Tussaud, edited by F. Herve, Esq , Author of " A Residence in Greece and Turkey." GALLANTRY.—A sailor who had spent nearly all his days on the blue waters, and knew little of land gear, came ashore the other day, and in passing up street saw a little woman going along with a large muff before her. He stepped up very politely, and offered to carry it for her, as ho was going the same way. The IRON TRADE.—At the late quarterly meeting of the ironmasters, it was determined that there should not ho any advance in the price of iron for the ensuing quarter. Although the demand still continues good, it was thought • more advisable to continue at the present prices than to attempt an advance.—Manchester Guardian.